[sgiitk]

Excellent judgement. They should add that the owner is at liberty to sue to parents of the delinquent!

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by Ragul

Why should the nephews Dad not face the crunch? What are the legal hurdles?

You are not serious are you?

Then why not the doctor who helped give birth to the child, who grew up and met with the accident?

Dude the owner is responsible - whose name appears on the RC Book.

[Ragul]

Originally Posted by Spitfire

You are not serious are you?

Then why not the doctor who helped give birth to the child, who grew up and met with the accident?

Dude the owner is responsible - whose name appears on the RC Book.

Whats so outlandish? Why should uncle suffer a blow of 8 lacs because nephew was delinquent and disobeyed/lied to get his hands on the mobike?

The boys Dad should share the loss - a large part of it.

--Ragul

[pamiboy]

Originally Posted by Ragul

Kids and teenagers are prone to sneak on adults when they are napping or not at home. In this case its not the owners son but a nephew. Why should the nephews Dad not face the crunch? What are the legal hurdles?

I hope uncle is going the compensate the owner.

This should be a simple case. If the owner wants the nephews family to pay up some of the costs he should file an FIR for stealing and/or sue his nephew. No doubt money will flow immediately. It's upto the relationship between the families.

[anjan_c2007]

The Supreme Court has just interpreted the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 the way it is. The relevant Section therein holds the registered owner of any motor vehicle liable for any damage or wrongful act that may have been caused as a result of the motor vehicle being driven by anyone who does not have a valid driving licence or is lawfully not competent to drive.
So the law also says that when we give our automobiles for repairs and if the mechanic who does not have a valid driving licence, test drives and it for any reason meets with an accident, the owner is liable for any damages that may result.
Again, if the automobile is driven by someone who is drunk, the owner is held liable.
The older Motor Vehicle Act of 1939, which was repealed after this new enactment was enforced w.e.f. 1/06/1989, also held the owner liable for any acts of negligence, including acts of omission or commission by the employed driver. But this proviso solely relied on the old British Master and Servant law.Our laws rely on the older British laws still as a matter of fact. The Master under the British law is always liable for any wrongful act of commission or omission by his Servant.The old Act did not however frame the owner for lending of his automobile to someone who is not lawfully competent to drive.That has come in the new 1988 Act.

[shankar.balan]

this is a good clarification and a good ratification by the supreme court. perhaps if it is rigorously enforced it will pull some of these half witted boy racers off the roads and make our lives a little easier and safer.

[Hammer & Anvil]

Double the penalty for adults who are careless and let kids take or 'steal' their cars.
I vote for this!

[suhaas307]

It's a simple case of Vicarious Liability. Much like the Master-Servant, Employer-Employee situation.

Originally Posted by pamiboy

This should be a simple case. If the owner wants the nephews family to pay up some of the costs he should file an FIR for stealing and/or sue his nephew. No doubt money will flow immediately. It's upto the relationship between the families.

One cannot sue a minor. He needs to attain the age of majority before one can claim compensation from him. But since he committed the crime when he was a minor, the Insurance company will not accept and entertain the claim, even if the family has comprehensive-(3rd party)-insurance. And rightfully so.

Originally Posted by Ragul

Kids and teenagers are prone to sneak on adults when they are napping or not at home. In this case its not the owners son but a nephew. Why should the nephews Dad not face the crunch? What are the legal hurdles?

I hope uncle is going the compensate the owner.

Whats so outlandish? Why should uncle suffer a blow of 8 lacs because nephew was delinquent and disobeyed/lied to get his hands on the mobike?

The boys Dad should share the loss - a large part of it

It's simple. The vehicle is owned by the uncle, and the responsibility of that vehicle rests on him. If his vehicle is misused, he will be held responsible, because it is his vehicle, and he ought to know the whereabouts of his vehicle and ensure that it does not go to the wrong hands.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Ragul

Whats so outlandish? Why should uncle suffer a blow of 8 lacs because nephew was delinquent and disobeyed/lied to get his hands on the mobike?

The boys Dad should share the loss - a large part of it.

I agree, it is the parents of the juvenile who must be responsible. Not the owner, unless he is the parent in question.

I remember my cousin used to drive PWD trucks as a minor, his dad used to work in PWD. Who is responsible of any accident, the CM or the PM?

The car/bike key is not a loaded gun that will be stored in a strong box. My son knows where the car key is kept. But I have raised my son such that he knows not to touch it. If an undisciplined relative comes into my house and makes away with my car key in my absence, why should I be responsible? It is like punishing the victim.

But Supreme court thinks owner should be responsible. This is the same Supreme court that decided that higher HP vehicle is at fault no matter who caused the accident. What else can you expect from them.

[apachelongbow]

What happens if the teenage helper of your local garage 'test drives' your car and in that process hits and kills a pedestrian? Who is responsible for this? You?, the helper? or the garage owner?
As per the law it is you the holder of the R/C book as the owner who is responsible.... hmmm

[vivekiny2k]

I don't know the legalities, but for any action for a minor, his legal guardians are responsible.

If the owner in this case voluntarily gave the keys for him to drive, he is responsible. if not, then it's a theft and the minor+his parents should be responsible.

To the garage question, here in US the insurance covers it assuming a legal lending for a small time. if the garage owner misuses it, his insurance should kick in first. But in US vehicle insurance is different from personal liability insurance which is again different from the garage business' insurance.

[SDP]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

I don't know the legalities, but for any action for a minor, his legal guardians are responsible.

If the owner in this case voluntarily gave the keys for him to drive, he is responsible. if not, then it's a theft and the minor+his parents should be responsible.

To the garage question, here in US the insurance covers it assuming a legal lending for a small time. if the garage owner misuses it, his insurance should kick in first. But in US vehicle insurance is different from personal liability insurance which is again different from the garage business' insurance.

I am not supporting any side. But I have a doubt about the portion in bold.
If the keys are left where they can be accessed by the minor, wouldn't that count as negligence on the owner's part? How is this conceptually different than a case of negligence where the owner left the vehicle on the road without engaging the handbrake, the vehicle rolled and hit someone.

[vivekiny2k]

because keys are not hazardous material and don't have to be locked up like guns.

leaving a car in street like you said is hazardous.

[scopriobharath]

Originally Posted by SDP

I am not supporting any side. But I have a doubt about the portion in bold.
If the keys are left where they can be accessed by the minor, wouldn't that count as negligence on the owner's part? How is this conceptually different than a case of negligence where the owner left the vehicle on the road without engaging the handbrake, the vehicle rolled and hit someone.

If the Minor is my son or daughter (assume 16 years of age) it would be very difficult to keep things hidden. More than a parent hiding the key / keeping it an accessible place, the better thing would be to instruct the minor NOT to use the car. Now how a parent would enforce this is the respective parent's choice. The parent must bring up the kid in such a way that he/she would listen to what the parent says and understand the effects of driving as a minor.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

What happens if the teenage helper of your local garage 'test drives' your car and in that process hits and kills a pedestrian? Who is responsible for this? You?, the helper? or the garage owner?
As per the law it is you the holder of the R/C book as the owner who is responsible.... hmmm

Adding to this - If my car is stolen and driven by a minor and it kills a pedestrian, who is responsible ?

The law must clearly cover all probablities especially in our land where people would look out for loopholes.

[dailydriver]

Ten parents in Hyderabad have been sentenced to a day's imprisonment for allowing their minor children to drive their vehicles.

A special magistrate court sent 10 parents behind bars for a day for allowing their minors to drive motorcycles in Telangana’s Hyderabad city. According to media reports, a penalty of Rs. 500 was also slapped on the parents, under Section 180 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Amid a massive crackdown against underage driving, a 14-year-old was also sentenced to remand for one day in a juvenile home, media reports added. In all these cases, vehicles have been seized, and the minor driver and parents are being summoned to attend counselling at the Traffic Training institute and later prosecuted. The campaign to curb underage driving follows close on the heels of another campaign to curb drunken driving in the city. Last year, police recorded 130 accidents involving minors and many of them turned out to be near-fatal and in some cases caused death.

It's high time other cities too follow suit and help curb the menace of underage driving.

Source